Discuss: What Makes a Great Movie Villain?

i agree. there was something about Clarice that he respected to much, as a worthy opponent at the least.

Well, thats just like, your opinion maaann...

I respect your fairly coherent arguments, Meh, even if they come off a bit long-winded and brash. I honestly don't see the dark knight's escalating violence as a sign of stupidity, but more a sign of frustration on Batman's part. In the movie version of Batman, Bruce Wayne applied a V for Vendetta ideal of a man becoming a symbol of inspiration and terror. He also saw his vigilante days a temporary act until the law system reached a point where it could clean up itself. However, now that time has passed, the mafia and other criminal groups now have a certain understanding of Batman's non-fatalistic methods, and it took a man like the Joker to properly test the limits of Batman's boundaries as well as the flaws of Batmans plan. The increased outlash of batman's actions represent his inability to cope with his system failing against someone who more effectively uses his concept of a symbolic figure but who uses it as a destructive tool rather than a authoritive one. Batman also doesn't want to recognise that- like the Joker- he is manipulating a system to achieve a result (i.e. the mafia and the justice system) he desires even though the eventual goals are different.
Anyone who has come accross a situation where even despite their intelllegence, success, or careful planning, they come across a random situation/individual that can interrupt the status quo and that can be very upsetting. Death, a bully, nature, an accident, a corrupt judicial system, the financial success of an apparently undeserving person, the abuse of authority; all of these can make even rational people incredibly mad. So when Batman; a genius level strategist billionaire vigilante is unable to stop a singular deranged homicidal maniac whose semi-organic path of destruction has not only killed half of the people he cares for, but also the majority of people he has been trying to defeat in a non-fatal manner, depite all his resources, he may irrationally turn to anger like ant person is bound to do. This is one of the reasons people repond so well with the film past it's quotable lines and action sequences.
I believe more sucessful villians need to maintain a bit of mystery, intimidation, and dark foreboding to them. Even villians who are not on a similar plain to the protagonist(s) can be iconic if they have the right amount of the previous elements; for example Jaws, Alien, etc. The more revelation about a character the less terrifying they become. Darth Vader no longer is a intimidating if you picture the mother's boy Hayden Christiansen as his history, and Hannibal Lecter becoming a cannibsal because of revenge for his little sister makes his story more cliche and boring. Sorry for the rant.

I Agree With You About "The Dark Knight". It's My Favorite Batman Film And The Worst Batman Simultaneously. The First Time I Saw It, I Was Questioning Simple Scene Logic, Like: Why Is He Still Using The WORST Batman Voice Ever Done (Including Clooney) While Talking To Fox, Who KNOWS HE'S F***ING BATMAN?!?!? Yes, The Dumbest Batman In Any Batman Movie. A Batman Who Just Doesn't Get It. Character Aside, Christian Bale Doesn't Possess The Ability To Show Emotion In A Film. The Closest I've Seen Him Getting Is "Rescue Dawn" (Desperation), "3:10 To Yuma" (Desperation), And "The Prestige" (Yelling Emotionally). The Whole "Heat"-Like Interview Room Scene Just Proves How Stupid His Batman Really Is. He's A Batman Who Is Lucky That The Villain Gives Him Any Kind Of Address At All.

You are comparing a relatively 'young' Batman to a comic legend of over 50 years of experience. Sure Nolan's Batman doesn't know the Joker or his ilk. He hasn't really delved into the psychology of the criminal mind yet.

As for Joker, he is insane, and as such is a little more aware of his complicated world. Hence the line, 'What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?'

When two mythic forces of nature meet, the outcome can only be cataclysmic. I'm sure Nolan's Batman learned something from that.

Let's not forget that Batman only understands the Joker up to this point to be a clever bank robber and wanna be terrorist. We are witness in the interrogation scene to the naivete of Batman when confronted with this new criminal, this supervillain he cannot understand. If we reference Ra's Al Ghul teachings to Bruce Wayne, then Batman would assume that all criminals are simple, they have simple motives and that is it. What is so unusual about Batman's reaction to a bankrobber and murderer? He wears facepaint? Crane wore a mask. This scene is intended, obviously I think, to show Batman's vulnerability and ignorance of this new enemy, the one who has no motive, the one who has everything figured out, which Batman and others tragically discover following the interrogation. Batman IS ignorant in this scene, you are correct, but that is not a failure of the film AT ALL, it is a realistic portrayal, a tragic portrayal, of the failure of Batman to grasp what he is dealing with. It is utterly intriguing that you would decry this portrayal of batman. Is he supposed to be superman, all-knowing, is he suppose to be God, one step ahead of the Joker? NO, he is NOT. He is a human being who walks the fine line betwen bad and good that the Joker thinks is a ridiculous dance, one that he only needs a push to fall off. The ENTIRE FILM is a rumination on this fine line, on where Batman stands between Dent and the Joker, between hope and chaos.

Regarding the suggestion (paraphrasing) that Nolan stupidly tries to expand some sense of good and bad by incorporating the naive adolescent rage of Batman, my question is whether 1) this is what Nolan is trying to do, and 2) how long has Bruce Wayne been Batman?

1. So how what is Nolan trying to do with this character? Is he 'expanding' our definiiton of good and bad, however one might do that, not even sure if that makes sense. I'd actually say it makes the distinction ambiguous, which is inherent in the very idea of Batman FROM THE BEGINNING. He is, as you point out, not in line with the law. Is Batman good? He surely is in contrast to the Joker. I guess my question here is, what kind of Batman do you want? What kind of Batman is the right Batman for you? Is it the 1960's TV show Adam West everything is hunky dorey because I am clever and can figure everything out? Are our characters to be cardboard cutouts; is Batman suppose to be the saint in the interrogration room? What are you getting at? What would you suggest that Batman BE when confronted with a man who he clearly does not understand, but will come to grasp only slightly over the course of the Joker's talk with him, and most especially afterwards.

2. This is not the seasoned veteran. This guy has worn the suit less than a year and a half, and he has only faced two supervillains (maybe three if we count Scarecrow, but I'm inclined to think Nolan would not call him one in this case).

ahhh so many replies so little time! What's unfortunate is that big Cinematical.com doesn't have a proper comment system allowing more than ONE reply. I see no "reply" button under YOUR post. So is only one reply allowed? From a site that asks its readers to "discuss"!?!?!!?....Anyone willing to migrate to an imdb thread?

To "dr_epos"

--I honestly don't see the dark knight's escalating violence as a sign of stupidity--

BATMAN's escalated violence is a sign of stupidity. The MOVIE'S overall escalated violence is a sign of superficiality. The entire film is shallow opportunistic sadism with "substance" in between its sadist moments. Please don't take my CAPITAL LETTERS as shouting, I just don't know if this comment system allows italics and I don't feeling like wasting a post on trying it. Bruce was not allowed to physically fight too much in BB(batman begins). Every time he wanted to exercise HIS physical power the movie defused it or chastised him for trying(e.g.: when he tries to kill Joe Chill. The movie makes his life a bit harder by disallowing it). BB's batman is alot smarter than TDK's in my opinion.

--but more a sign of frustration on Batman's part--

ahh but what is frustration but not knowing the answers to something? You don't even need the right answers to soothe frustration, a false one will do. Batman in BB has in place the "false" one to define criminals: cowards. According to TDK, batman has again an ANSWER: "criminals are not complicated'. But yet, throughout the movie, from the very beginning(attempting to cut crane's van), he's frustrated. You're attempting to link BB's batman and TDK's together, and I don't think you'll be able to because they're 2 completely different people. BB's batman doesn't have the luxury to cut open vans and still live to see the next day, he has to be smarter than that. TDK sacrifices realism to showcase something: that batman is more brawn and feelings and emotions than brains. There is no other purpose to that "cutting the van scene". He's this overtly dumb and brutish again when he crashes into the garbage truck.

--Batman's boundaries as well as the flaws of Batmans plan--

but he has SO MANY flaws. How does one be a "batman" and not be a bit more self-aware? Why is he batman and everyone else not? Is he the brawniest of them all? No. Is he the smartest of them all? No. Is he the most altruistic of them all? No. Is he the most angry of them all? No. What then makes him batman besides the dictates of a comicbook? What then is his anchor? I see nothing. In BB his anchor was rage and individualism, in TDK there's nothing.

--Anyone who has come accross a situation where even despite their intelllegence, success, or careful planning, they come across a random situation/individual that can interrupt the status quo and that can be very upsetting--

and this is where I usually shut down the TDK fans. Batman was already a failure BEFORE Joker came into the picture. He's his OWN failure. There's nothing new that Joker introduced that wasn't already there by batman. Go through everything the Joker does and I guarantee you it was already there. Batman is a self -defeating personality. I've seen people like that in real life, but their "plans" are more coherent, they even KNOW the flaws present in them because they understand why they do what they do to an extent. Batman here on the other hand is like a child from beginning to end with or with out a Joker. He's just SO naive that it just keeps nagging at you, why is he batman? He has no goal here, it just APPEARS so with none to be named. I believe he's supposed to REPRESENT a person that has a goal, not actually be a person with a goal.


To "DireCrow"

--Sure Nolan's Batman doesn't know the Joker or his ilk. He hasn't really delved into the psychology of the criminal mind yet--

Ha, well, he actually has, more than anyone. This type of reasoning unveils a fanboy. Not that there's anything wrong with being a fanboy but you're a bit too familiar with the comics, to the point where you take a guy in a batsuit as the norm. As if he was born in a batsuit and must learn the world now step by step. I rather not read more of your post as I'm sure it contains the same fantastical rationality, as is the case with most fanboys...


To "DI3"

--Ra's Al Ghul teachings to Bruce Wayne, then Batman would assume that all criminals are simple--

screw Ras, let's take Batman for what he is and what he says in THIS movie. You try to pull anything over from BB to TDK and I guarantee it won't work. Both movies are on different wavelengths in almost every aspect.

The definition of "criminal" differs in both movies. Batman Begins is an ode to the criminal, the societal deviant. In BB batman is the ultimate criminal, an idealist, listening to no one, just as all criminals believe they are "all on their own" even when they may have friends, and that their perspective is the "correct" one. That's the MOVIE'S definition of "criminal". When batman SAYS "criminal" he's talking society's definition of criminal, the person who steals. The person who's after something for personal reasons:money, revenge, etc. Therefore if you can determine what the criminal wants then he's been conquered.

In TDK batman is no longer portrayed as a criminal, the societal deviant, he doesn't even believe he is one, he actually thinks he's part of the police, which is odd 'cause he's the only one in a BATSUIT! Does he never wonder how he ended up in a batsuit? Does he never wonder what drove him to invent it? Or why he's the only person in one? Because there sure isn't a reason present in TDK. The reasons he created the batsuit in BB are not reasons he supports in TDK. He wears the suit it BB to "right the wrongs", to "turn fear on those who pray on the fearful", whereas in TDK the suit is meant to uphold a law in a Gotham. A specific goal(uphold Gotham. Or prevent DEATH, depending on how you look at it) with oddly no specific motive(anger? altruism?), nor specific means(unmitigated violence? violence with a limit?? judicial system?{delivering Lao to police and investigating bullet holes is him being judicial}). What is this guy doing again?

--Batman IS ignorant in this scene, you are correct,--

ahh that also means that big cinematical.com got it WRONG when they say batman and Joker pass the coffee test. Misinterpretation, as I said! What to do with this knowledge? File it away I suppose as the millionth instance of someone overstating TDK's actual essence. I like how you guys say that I'm right on this but I'm wrong on that! How about you all around just call me right, eh?

--He wears facepaint? Crane wore a mask--

this says alot about your logic. WHY oh why must batman reference CRANE to explain Joker's mask when BATMAN WEARS A MASKK!!! BATMAN is the 1st criminal to reference to explain anyone else wearing masks! He's the seminal criminal. He should look at himself to understand why anyone else is acting that way. "Why is everyone behaving so badly when I'm being such a good boy by beating the crap out of people. ADUUUURRR!!!"-batman from TDK. "You've changed things!" "YOU" as in batman and no one else! BB's batman KNOWS this, that him wearing a mask is going to cause others to go the extra mile. That is why he uses such heavy weaponry, he understood "escalation" before it was verbalized. And all of a sudden TDK's batman doesn't? Same heavy weaponry, less brains?

--is he suppose to be God--

I want him to be as smart as the movie purports him to be, but he's dumber than EVERYONE in the movie. Even Gambol seemed smarter, and he's supposed to represent the simple "selfish criminal".

--He is a human being who walks the fine line betwen bad and good--

why doesn't HE KNOW it's ridiculous OMG!! He's too stupid, dumber than people NOT in batsuits, that means something, it means he's illogical to boot. The batsuit carries too much weight of intellect and focus to make sense when put on such a naive person. I'm in LOVE with BB's batman, I close to hate TDK's.

--that Nolan stupidly tries to expand some sense of good and bad--

That's not what I said. I said it's REALITY that when one ventures off into the dark side he then learns that "evil" is not so "evil". It is fact, it is given, it is done in so many movies, it is done in TDK but with Dent. Please do catch up to Nolan's universe already! Why are you asking if that was his intention? It was done in BB! In Batman Returns! In cartoons!

--Is Batman good?--

he's too egoistic to even believe in the concept of good or evil, that's what it takes to be a batman after all. BB's batman understood that there was no evil, just adversary. But how convenient that he doesn't in TDK.

--what kind of Batman do you want? --

one that makes sense in his own movie. You're still under the impression that TDK's batman makes sense, so you think I simply don't like this batman. I don't like this batman because he REALLY doesn't make sense.

--Are our characters to be cardboard cutouts--

LAWL! THEY WERE! AND THAT'S MY PROBLEM! Batman especially is too archetypal for me--empty.

--is Batman suppose to be the saint in the interrogration room--

LAWL! HE WAS! AND THAT'S MY PROBLEM! I don't even get why he sat down with Joker in the 1st place besides that the movie makes Joker a big enough deal and makes batman weak enough. I don't get why he doesn't just start pounding the Joker, and why he doesn't maim or even kill the Joker. Joker's obsession with murder is a silly one, akin to the 60s show. "Joker said you will murder so when you do murder he wins!". It's like saying "hahah I knew you would turn left! I knew it! I win!" "argggg how did he know I would turn left, I will never turn left again!". Batman's no kill rule is nonsensical since he does casualty killings like a nutcase. BB's batman's logic in such a situation is "well you shouldn't have been there/you shouldn' have been a criminal". But that doesn't apply in TDK so you're left with an empty batman.

--What are you getting at?--

that you don't understand the movie you so love? Again, an example, Jeffrey M. Anderson of cinematical likes TDK very much and yet, according to you, he doesn't understand the film. Is there no possibility that you too could be wrong?

--he has only faced two supervillains--

HAHAAAAaaaaa god I hate you people, always in a comicbook state of mind. WHat now makes a "supervillain"? Aren't you lucky that TDK is clear-cut enough that you're able to spot a "villain" and "hero". So much for not being cardboard cutouts eh? Aren't you lucky that you have preconcieved notions of Ras being a "villain" in the comics to superimpose on BB, even though when you watch BB without knowing its comicbook background you'll see that Ras is hardly a villain in the film, let alone that THERE IS NO VILLAIN IN BB! It's batman against the world in BB, no person in particular. BB is not as convenient as one man represents chaos and the other order. Thanks for playing

You are missing the point entirely, in expecting straight-forward delivery. Batman knows. He knows he and the Joker are one in the same, despite the dualism inherent in their opposition of order and chaos - Batman simply doesn't want to admit it, nor face it, nor indeed acknowledge it. He asks naive questions purely to distance himself from Joker. He doesn't want it to be this way; he doesn't want to accept that, ultimately, they are both detachments of reality and occupy the same plane of exaggerated existence.

--He asks naive questions purely to distance himself from Joker--

and I even considered that as that's what it looked like at 1st. He says it forcefully as if he doesn't actually mean what he says, and of coarse Joker abruptly unveiling it, and then batman staring as if he knows Joker is right. But it then begs the question what then does batman think of himself? Not now only but since the beginning? Surely not a protector, he can't possibly think so. If he doesn't like being like Joker then what does he like being? Through all the casualty murders he's done he doesn't know he's a bit like a murderer? He doesn't get that he's a destructive person even when looking at his means of operation:violence and force? Why does it take a Joker to reveal this in himself? BB's batman understood himself more than this. Joker must then represent a THOUGHT not a person, but the movie has him as both.

--He doesn't want it to be this way--

it takes alot of confidence in your actions to be a batman. If he doubts himself so much, where then does he get the strength and focus to be batman? He must be %100 sure about SOMETHING to be going all this distance. What then is he after? Surely not Gotham's definition of justice, surely not HIS definition of justice, because he doesn't believe in either.

You negated a fellow TDK lover with your assertion, "DI3". Now even though you're now on the side of cinematical's Jeffrey and it's 2 to 1 on how this scene should be interpreted, I rather think of it as you guys just battering yourselves around, all of you in your very own arbitrary position. For the record, I love TDK's ideas, hate it's delivery.

"What makes the Joker and Batman parallel each other is that they are two characters who were twisted by childhood cruelty, and how one uses that to go out and do good while the other uses it to go out and do evil. That's really what makes them 'connect' in some way"

thanks for copying Roger Ebert's review. That is HIS perspective, not the characters', and the article asks how smart the CHARACTERS are. The article purports that Joker and Batman recognize each other to some extent, without words, and I'm saying batman is too dumb to even know what room he's in. He exhibits such rage and darkness, and yet, how convenient, he's as innocent as an average person who's never broken a toenail: "you killz for money! I is GOOD! You is BAD! GOOD BAD BAD GOOD!" Venturing off into the "dark side" is supposed to intellectually broaden your definition of good or bad. Yet it doesn't do so for this oh so dark batman? Why? Because he's an emotionally illogical character created by Nolan to fill the voids of the audiences' wants, cinematic wants, and thematic wants. Alot of work went into this Batman, but not enough, not as much as did in Heat's characters

Another thing that connects them is that they are both beings outside the law and outside the norm whom the common populace will never be comfortable with. Batman is a hero but the people of Gotham are torn on his heroism and always ready to turn on him.